It’s interesting to break this down. A simple message of love for a well-loved author, in her home city, for her birthday, removed for being political and/or offensive.

The complaint is that, while the message isn’t offensive in itself, it’s a ... 1/5 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-edinburgh-rail-station-advert-in-support-of-author-removed-m9ptsc872

... dog whistle about her recent opinions, which are offensive. But has what she’s said recently, about women’s sex-based rights been offensive? No, say protesters, but they’re a dog-whistle about anti-trans views.

So this is a second-order dog-whistle. 2/5

Aha, but is it political? Rowling spoke in support of women’s existing sex-based rights. Just as how Network Rail currently have a rainbow on their logo, in support of LGBT rights. Why is one okay but the other isn’t? 3/5

Well, say some protesters, the advert itself isn’t offensive, but the person who placed the advert is. Which is an interesting position to take, since this isn’t mentioned anywhere on the advert - the viewer has no idea who placed the advert, so cannot be offended by them. 4/5

So we are in a very odd situation where offence is taken because of a Chinese-whispers chain of supposed dog-whistles, and the people offender don’t really seem to know what they’re offended by or the views of the people who offend them. 5/5

Postscript: This was a trap. Of course it was a trap - Posie Parker knew exactly what she was doing. And the thing about traps is smart people see them and avoid them, they don’t eagerly jump in.

So, quite predictably, the Streisand Effect has got this much more coverage.

What makes you say that?